Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Unregistered profit-sharing agreements did not create any...
Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional upheld.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Unregistered profit-sharing agreements did not create any leasehold or licence interest in the corporate debtor's hotel premises, so the appellant had no enforceable right to remain in possession. The Tribunal found that no valid legal basis supported occupation of the second and third floor premises, and the alleged arrangements could not defeat recovery of possession after commencement of CIRP. It further held that, once CIRP began, the Resolution Professional was entitled to take possession and control of the corporate debtor's assets, and an application before the Adjudicating Authority to recover unauthorised occupation was maintainable without separate civil proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.
Unregistered profit-sharing agreements did not create any leasehold or licence interest in the corporate debtor's hotel premises, so the appellant had no enforceable right to remain in possession. The Tribunal found that no valid legal basis supported occupation of the second and third floor premises, and the alleged arrangements could not defeat recovery of possession after commencement of CIRP. It further held that, once CIRP began, the Resolution Professional was entitled to take possession and control of the corporate debtor's assets, and an application before the Adjudicating Authority to recover unauthorised occupation was maintainable without separate civil proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.